U.S. v. Punch, 82-3549
Decision Date | 29 June 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-3549,82-3549 |
Citation | 709 F.2d 889 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David PUNCH, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Glass & Reed, Robert Glass, New Orleans, La. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Robert T. Myers, Harry W. McSherry, Asst. U.S. Attys., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before THORNBERRY, GEE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
INTRODUCTION:
David Punch appeals his conviction for importation of marijuana and cocaine following the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his prior guilty plea. We conclude that the district court's failure to adequately inform Punch of the nature of the charges against him requires automatic reversal of his conviction.
FACTS AND DISPOSITION BELOW:
On December 15, 1980 government agents in Dulac, Louisiana seized the M/V ARTISTA and its cargo of 46,000 pounds of marijuana and 200 pounds of cocaine. 1 Punch, the registered owner of the M/V ARTISTA, was subsequently charged in a four count indictment with possession with intent to distribute marijuana (Count I), possession with intent to distribute cocaine (Count II), importation of marijuana (Count III), and importation of cocaine (Count IV).
At a pre-trial conference, Punch's lawyer presented the court with a proposal to settle the case by having his client plead guilty to Counts III and IV of the indictment. Punch's lawyer stressed, however, that Punch persisted in maintaining that he was Although Punch believed that it was wrong for an innocent man to plead guilty, his lawyer later testified that he was able to convince him that, given the strength of the Government's case, it was in his best interest to enter a plea of guilty. 2 The district judge accepted the plea under the rule of North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), which permits the acceptance of a guilty plea even though the defendant persists in maintaining his innocence. The Government agreed to move for dismissal of the remaining counts at the time of sentencing.
innocent of all charges, claiming that his ship had been used for criminal purposes without his authorization.
Four days after he entered his plea, Punch was visited in jail by a probation officer assigned to prepare his pre-sentence report. In the course of the visit, Punch told the officer that he intended to withdraw his guilty plea. Since Punch's lawyer was on vacation at that time, Punch wrote a letter to the district judge informing him that he wished to withdraw the plea. Sentencing was postponed accordingly, and upon his return from vacation, Punch's lawyer filed a formal motion to withdraw the plea under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d). 3 After hearing oral argument, the court denied the motion and sentenced Punch to concurrent four year terms on Counts III and IV. The court relied on its discretionary power to deny the motion, reasoning that: (1) Punch was ably represented by counsel at the Rule 11 proceeding; (2) Punch was afforded every constitutional safeguard; and (3) all of the participants in the proceeding fully understood what was going on.
ANALYSIS:
Core Concerns
Punch argues on appeal that his conviction must be reversed because the district court failed to properly inform him of the elements of the offense to which he pleaded guilty. Rule 11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinent part:
Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform him of, and determine that he understands, ... the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1). In United States v. Dayton, 604 F.2d 931 (5th Cir.1979) (en banc), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904, 100 S.Ct. 1080, 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980), this Court set out a number of clear and definite guidelines governing the conduct of guilty plea hearings, and the standards for reviewing these hearings on appeal. In Dayton, we stated that: (1) The requirement that the judge personally inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him, and determine that he understands it, is a "core concern" of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. (2) The entire failure by the court to address this core concern requires automatic reversal under McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). (3) In some cases, mere failure to adequately address this core concern may authorize further examination of the alleged omission in In Dayton, defendants pleaded guilty to charges of possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The district court judge in that case read them the relevant counts of the indictment:
light of the harmless error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). (4) For simple charges, "a reading of the indictment, followed by an opportunity given the defendant to ask questions about it, will usually suffice" to discharge the judge of his obligation to personally inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him. (5) Charges of a more complex nature may require further explanation. Dayton, 604 F.2d at 939
[COUNT 19]
That on or about August 15, 1976, in the Western District of Texas, [defendant] did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute approximately six hundred pounds of marihuana, a Schedule I Controlled Substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).
....
[COUNT 28]
That on or about December 7, 1976, in the Western District of Texas, [defendant] did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute approximately one thousand pounds of marihuana, a Schedule I Controlled Substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).
Id. at 941 (emphasis added). The judge then went on to ask defendant whether he understood these charges:
All right, Mr. Dayton, do you understand the nature of the charges that have been made against you in Counts 19 and 28?
Id. In Dayton, we held that Id. at 943. See also United States v. Sanchez, 650 F.2d 745, 748 (5th Cir.1981) ( ).
The indictments handed down in the present case, like those read in open court in Dayton, simply and unambiguously set forth the nature and elements of the charges lodged against defendant. Counts III and IV are reproduced below.
COUNT III
On or about December 15, 1980, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, David Punch knowingly and intentionally did unlawfully import into the United States and into the customs territory of the United States from a place outside thereof, approximately 45,711 pounds of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, said marijuana having been aboard the M/V ARTISTA; all in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 952(a) and Title 21, United States Code, Section 960(a)(1).
COUNT IV
On or about December 15, 1980, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, David Punch knowingly and intentionally did unlawfully import into the United States and into the customs territory of the United States from a place outside thereof, approximately 200 pounds of cocaine hydrochloride, a Schedule II narcotic controlled substance, said cocaine having been aboard the M/V ARTISTA; all in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 952(a) and Title 21, United States Code, Section 960(s)(1).
(Emphasis added). In the present case, however, neither the judge nor the district attorney ever read these charges to the defendant. We reproduce below relevant excerpts from the transcript of the colloquy between the court, the district attorney, Punch and his counsel at the Rule 11 proceeding:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oppel v. Lopes
...to pleading guilty even though he may be innocent, the concept of the Alford doctrine is "counter-intuitive." United States v. Punch, 709 F.2d 889, 895 (5th Cir.1983). Thus, to ensure the plea represents an intelligent decision, it is essential that a court that accepts an Alford plea ensur......
-
Brown v. State
...can be expected to understand it." Miller v. State, 970 A.2d 332, 343 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009); see also United States v. Punch, 709 F.2d 889, 892-94 (5th Cir. 1983) (in non-complex cases, a reading of the indictment may suffice). Accordingly, a detailed explanation of the language may not......
-
Brown v. State
...can be expected to understand it." Miller v. State, 970 A.2d 332, 343 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009); see also United States v. Punch, 709 F.2d 889, 892-94 (5th Cir. 1983) (in non-complex cases, a reading of the indictment may suffice). Accordingly, a detailed explanation of the language may not......
-
Brown v. State
...can be expected to understand it." Miller v. State, 970 A.2d 332, 343 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009); see also United States v. Punch, 709 F.2d 889, 892-94 (5th Cir. 1983) (in non-complex cases, a reading of the indictment may suffice). Accordingly, a detailed explanation of the language may not......